Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2023
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-1161
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-04152-VC,
`Judge Vince Chhabria.
`______________________
`
`Decided: May 12, 2023
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
`
`
` JULIA K. YORK, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
`LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN COULSON, New York, NY.
` ______________________
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2023
`
`2
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and REYNA, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Larry Golden appeals the Northern District of Califor-
`nia’s order dismissing his patent infringement, antitrust,
`and unjust enrichment claims. For the following reasons,
`we affirm.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Golden owns various patents disclosing systems for
`locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock upon the detection of
`chemical, radiological, or biological hazards.1 In 2013, he
`filed his first complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) in
`the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the United States
`government caused cell phone manufacturers, including
`Apple, to produce infringing devices. Golden v. United
`States (“Golden I”), 156 Fed. Cl. 623, 625–26 (2021). After
`filing six amended complaints over the course of eight
`years, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case with
`prejudice for failure to state a claim. Id. at 632. While Mr.
`Golden’s case against the government was pending, he filed
`a parallel litigation in the District of South Carolina
`against the cell phone manufacturers, including Apple.
`Complaint, Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC,
`(D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2019), ECF No. 16. The district court dis-
`missed the case because it was “duplicative” of the co-pend-
`ing case against the government in the Court of Federal
`Claims where the manufacturers were accused of “infring-
`ing on the same patents in the same manner.” Golden v.
`Apple Inc. (“Golden III”), No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC, 2020 WL
`415896, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020). We affirmed. Golden
`
`1 The patents at issue in this case are U.S. Patent
`Nos.
`7,385,497;
`8,106,752;
`9,096,189;
`9,589,439;
`10,163,287; 10,984,619; RE43,891, and RE43,990. S.A. 32,
`36.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/12/2023
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`3
`
`v. Apple Inc., 819 F. App’x 930, 931 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-
`precedential).
`Thereafter, Mr. Golden restyled his patent infringe-
`ment claims as takings, antitrust, and unjust enrichment
`claims and filed additional cases in the Court of Federal
`Claims and District of South Carolina. See, e.g., Golden v.
`United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming the
`dismissal of patent-infringement-based takings claims);
`Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 21-2160, 2022 WL 986984 (4th
`Cir. Mar. 31, 2022) (affirming dismissal of antitrust and
`unjust enrichment claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 22-
`1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) (affirming
`the dismissal of patent infringement and antitrust claims).
`Notwithstanding the prior dismissals, Mr. Golden again
`filed suit against Apple in the Northern District of Califor-
`nia for the same patent infringement, antitrust, and unjust
`enrichment claims. S.A. 8–46. Apple filed a motion to dis-
`miss the complaint as frivolous, for lack of subject matter
`jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. S.A. 267–89.
`The district court dismissed the claims as frivolous without
`leave to amend.2 S.A. 1. Mr. Golden appeals. We have
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`DISCUSSION
`We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing
`a motion to dismiss. K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time
`Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`
`In the alternative, the court dismissed the patent
`2
`infringement claims as barred by issue preclusion because
`they were fully litigating and decided in Golden v. United
`States, 156 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2021), aff’d No. 13-cv-
`00307, 2022 WL 4103287 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) and the
`antitrust and unjust enrichment allegations as failing to
`state a plausible claim. S.A. 1. We do not reach the court’s
`analysis on these other grounds.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/12/2023
`
`4
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`The Ninth Circuit reviews a challenge to a district court’s
`dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de
`novo. Id. Pleadings made by pro se litigants are “held to
`less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
`lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). “[A]
`complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations
`and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an argua-
`ble basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
`U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
`The district court properly dismissed the complaint as
`frivolous. Mr. Golden has filed at least six lawsuits assert-
`ing the same patent infringement claims against Apple in
`three jurisdictions. See, e.g., Golden I, 156 Fed. Cl. at 625–
`26; Complaint, Golden III, No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC (D.S.C.
`Oct. 15, 2019), ECF No. 16; Golden v. Apple Inc. (“Golden
`IV”), No. 6:20-cv-02270-JD-KFM, 2021 WL 4260782
`(D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2021); Golden v. Apple Inc. (“Golden V”),
`6:20-cv-04353-JD-KFM, 2021 WL 5074739 (D.S.C. Nov. 2,
`2021). Each of these prior cases were also dismissed as
`frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Golden IV, 2021
`WL 4260782, at *2–3 (dismissing antitrust claims as frivo-
`lous); Golden V, 2021 WL 5074739, at *1–2 (dismissing pa-
`tent infringement claims as frivolous); Golden III, 819 F.
`App’x at 931 (affirming dismissal of patent infringement
`claims as frivolous). The claims in this case mirror the
`claims in these prior cases. Compare S.A. 8–46 (Com-
`plaint) (alleging antitrust violations and patent infringe-
`ment based on at least Apple’s iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and
`Watch Series 5), with Complaint at ¶¶ 28, 45, 62, 79, 105,
`Golden V, No. 6:20-cv-04353-JD (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2021), ECF
`No. 10 (alleging patent infringement based on at least Ap-
`ple’s iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and Watch Series 5). These al-
`legations lack an arguable basis in law or fact and are
`nothing more than another attempt by Mr. Golden to cir-
`cumvent prior dismissals in other jurisdictions. After ten
`years of asserting these claims in multiple jurisdictions,
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/12/2023
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`Mr. Golden has yet to cure the deficiencies in his allega-
`tions.
`For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismis-
`sal without leave to amend.
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`Costs awarded to Apple.
`
`